About time!

BladeRunner wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:We now have a protected class of people based on the "choices" they make.

Welcome to America.

"Destroy the family, you destroy the country." ~Lenin

You want to know what has really destroyed the family in America?  The fact that mom and dad aren't home.  

I couldn't agree more with your statement. And in the case of homos getting married, either a mom or a dad isn't home. Hence, how it destroys the family, and thus, the country.

Dr. Jones wrote: They are expected to work two jobs a piece to pay their dues to the capitalist machine that runs this country today.  If you are going to blame somebody, start with them.[/color]

LOL...yes. let's blame evil corporations. Don't look at the feminist movement that tells women they are less important if they stay home instead of persueing a "career" as having part of the blame of women "choosing" to work.

Dr. Jones wrote:     They are expected to work two jobs a piece to pay their dues to the capitalist machine that runs this country today.  If you are going to blame somebody, start with them.

Dr. Jones wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:We now have a protected class of people based on the "choices" they make.

Welcome to America.

"Destroy the family, you destroy the country." ~Lenin

You want to know what has really destroyed the family in America?  The fact that mom and dad aren't home.  

I couldn't agree more with your statement. And in the case of homos getting married, either a mom or a dad isn't home. Hence, how it destroys the family, and thus, the country.

Dr. Jones wrote: They are expected to work two jobs a piece to pay their dues to the capitalist machine that runs this country today.  If you are going to blame somebody, start with them.[/color]

LOL...yes. let's blame evil corporations. Don't look at the feminist movement that tells women they are less important if they stay home instead of persueing a "career" as having part of the blame of women "choosing" to work.

Cute, but my point is that there are no parents there to raise their children.  

What does the women's movement have to do with the fact that a working couple can't provide for their family as a single paycheck did a couple generations ago?

Dr. Jones wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:We now have a protected class of people based on the "choices" they make.

Welcome to America.

"Destroy the family, you destroy the country." ~Lenin

Homosexual marriage has no more ability to destroy the family than heterosexual marriage.  It's all in the way you conduct yourself toward your spouse and children.

You want to know what has really destroyed the family in America?  The fact that mom and dad aren't home.  They are expected to work two jobs a piece to pay their dues to the capitalist machine that runs this country today.  If you are going to blame somebody, start with them.

BladeRunner wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:We now have a protected class of people based on the "choices" they make.

Welcome to America.

"Destroy the family, you destroy the country." ~Lenin

You want to know what has really destroyed the family in America?  The fact that mom and dad aren't home.  

I couldn't agree more with your statement. And in the case of homos getting married, either a mom or a dad isn't home. Hence, how it destroys the family, and thus, the country.

Dr. Jones wrote: They are expected to work two jobs a piece to pay their dues to the capitalist machine that runs this country today.  If you are going to blame somebody, start with them.[/color]

LOL...yes. let's blame evil corporations. Don't look at the feminist movement that tells women they are less important if they stay home instead of persueing a "career" as having part of the blame of women "choosing" to work.

Cute, but my point is that there are no parents there to raise their children.  

What does the women's movement have to do with the fact that a working couple can't provide for their family as a single paycheck did a couple generations ago?

Are you seriously this stupid?

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

Rick Scarborough wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:You not only know anything about Judicial activism but you know nothing about the Bible either. Please cite the passage where interracial marriage is forbidden.

Ask Bob Jones University, they're the ones who took that idiotic argument all the way to the supreme court. Try to follow along, I didn't claim that the bible forbids interracial marriage, BJ University did.

Darth Cheney wrote:Then you can cite where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that says gays can be married. You get your knowledge from the Jon Stewart Late Show and know nothing of fact...keep voting democrat.

http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2015/06/obergefell-v-hodges-gay-marriage-decision-full-text/

Apparently you have a reading comprehension problem...where in the CONSTITUTION or BILL OF RIGHTS does it say gays can be married?

The Supreme's weren't acting on Constitutional precedence but rather their feelings (activist ruling)...are you beginning to understand? Before you spout off with more mindless drivel, talk with someone much smarter than you and have them read my question.

Where does the constitution say anyone should be allowed to marry?  By your logic no marriage should be legal.

Check out the 10th Amendment fcukstick.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This decision fabricates law outside the legislative process and infringes on the State's regulation powers. Even John "Whiplash" Roberts understood this, although he must have had a senior moment in King v Burwell.

I love how conservatives like to rape and pillage the tenth amendment whenever they don't get their way.  This is very clearly defined by the first amendment:

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion...

Most organized religion defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, but other than that there is no basis for anything.  Since the first amendment "prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion" the buck stops there.

Harold Covington wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:You obviously need to stay more nights at Holiday Inn Express in order to hone your severely deficient Constitutional scholar skills.

The equating of "gay rights" to Civil Rights not only insulting to and diminish Blacks and minorities but is also intellectually dishonest.

In Loving vs Virginia, both husband and wife were legally married in Washington DC but upon returning to Virginia were convicted and sentenced to 1 year in prison. Name the one married gay couple who spent one day in jail for being married. Gay marriage has never been illegal as is often claimed, it's just not recognized or solemnized by the various States.

In Brown vs Board of Education, SCOTUS held that a Jim Crow segregation law deprived minorities of equal education opportunities. Any benefits denied same sex couples is the fault of the various estate laws and Social Security regulations not the definition of tradition marriage.

The casus belli of the Civil War was mainly fiscal policies and tariffs imposed on the South by the North. Slavery was a protected institution in the Constitution. On the verge of losing the War, Lincoln turned the war into a moral cause with his Emancipation Proclamation even though he himself was against mixing the races and proposed shipping all Blacks to other countries. And least you forget, the North claimed states rights just as the South did with their nullification of Federal fugitive slave laws which required the return of escaped slaves.

You took a long time burning up the interwebs to come up with that, too bad it doesn't even come close to addressing what I said.

But your last paragraph is interesting. It's an oft repeated argument that is pure rubbish and only a willfully ignorant pile of applesauce could say that with a straight face.

One look at the secessionists own words in the articles of secession and the cornerstone address proves your ridiculous claim to be laughably ignorant. They do mention that "slavery was a protected institution in the Constitution" and virtually everything else they said revolved around their "right" to own slaves. Reading through the declarations of secession, you'll find almost nothing that doesn't center around that "right". The corner stone speech reaches a little further but says in no uncertain terms that slavery is the primary, "immediate cause" for leaving the Union.

Cornerstone Speech:
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

...

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

Rick Scarborough wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:You not only know anything about Judicial activism but you know nothing about the Bible either. Please cite the passage where interracial marriage is forbidden.

Ask Bob Jones University, they're the ones who took that idiotic argument all the way to the supreme court. Try to follow along, I didn't claim that the bible forbids interracial marriage, BJ University did.

Darth Cheney wrote:Then you can cite where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that says gays can be married. You get your knowledge from the Jon Stewart Late Show and know nothing of fact...keep voting democrat.

http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2015/06/obergefell-v-hodges-gay-marriage-decision-full-text/

Apparently you have a reading comprehension problem...where in the CONSTITUTION or BILL OF RIGHTS does it say gays can be married?

The Supreme's weren't acting on Constitutional precedence but rather their feelings (activist ruling)...are you beginning to understand? Before you spout off with more mindless drivel, talk with someone much smarter than you and have them read my question.

Where does the constitution say anyone should be allowed to marry?  By your logic no marriage should be legal.

Check out the 10th Amendment fcukstick.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This decision fabricates law outside the legislative process and infringes on the State's regulation powers. Even John "Whiplash" Roberts understood this, although he must have had a senior moment in King v Burwell.

I love how conservatives like to rape and pillage the tenth amendment whenever they don't get their way.  This is very clearly defined by the first amendment:

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion...

Most organized religion defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, but other than that there is no basis for anything.  Since the first amendment "prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion" the buck stops there.

Seriously? You are making the argument that Obergefell v. Hodges was about establishment of religion? Not even the same sex proponents made that argument. Justice Kennedy found his "fundamental right" somewhere in the swamp of the 14th amendment substantive due process clause.  And Kennedy only made a reference to it in his majority opinion as a "promise" that believers and religions would be protected if they didn't condone gay marriage. In fact the dissenting justices warned explicitly that this ruling does not protect religion.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

Rick Scarborough wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:You not only know anything about Judicial activism but you know nothing about the Bible either. Please cite the passage where interracial marriage is forbidden.

Ask Bob Jones University, they're the ones who took that idiotic argument all the way to the supreme court. Try to follow along, I didn't claim that the bible forbids interracial marriage, BJ University did.

Darth Cheney wrote:Then you can cite where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that says gays can be married. You get your knowledge from the Jon Stewart Late Show and know nothing of fact...keep voting democrat.

http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2015/06/obergefell-v-hodges-gay-marriage-decision-full-text/

Apparently you have a reading comprehension problem...where in the CONSTITUTION or BILL OF RIGHTS does it say gays can be married?

The Supreme's weren't acting on Constitutional precedence but rather their feelings (activist ruling)...are you beginning to understand? Before you spout off with more mindless drivel, talk with someone much smarter than you and have them read my question.

Where does the constitution say anyone should be allowed to marry?  By your logic no marriage should be legal.

Check out the 10th Amendment fcukstick.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This decision fabricates law outside the legislative process and infringes on the State's regulation powers. Even John "Whiplash" Roberts understood this, although he must have had a senior moment in King v Burwell.

I love how conservatives like to rape and pillage the tenth amendment whenever they don't get their way.  This is very clearly defined by the first amendment:

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion...

Most organized religion defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, but other than that there is no basis for anything.  Since the first amendment "prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion" the buck stops there.

Seriously? You are making the argument that Obergefell v. Hodges was about establishment of religion? Not even the same sex proponents made that argument. Justice Kennedy found his "fundamental right" somewhere in the swamp of the 14th amendment substantive due process clause.  And Kennedy only made a reference to it in his majority opinion as a "promise" that believers and religions would be protected if they didn't condone gay marriage. In fact the dissenting justices warned explicitly that this ruling does not protect religion.

WOW!!!    You got your bags all packed, but no idea where the hell you are going

The Fourteenth Amendment houses something called the "Incorporation Doctrine".  Back when we abolished slavery there were people, like minded to yourself, that didn't think that individual states had to abide by the constitution if they didn't like what it said.  They wrote laws in a particular manner in an attempt to circumvent the constitution.  The North wrote the Fourteenth Amendment,  the "due process" clause in particular, to add some teeth to the original Bill of Rights and would not allow Southern states representation without agreeing to it.  This amendment is still widely used today in lieu of the proper verbiage because of people like yourself who have no respect for the constitution.

         
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

Rick Scarborough wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:You not only know anything about Judicial activism but you know nothing about the Bible either. Please cite the passage where interracial marriage is forbidden.

Ask Bob Jones University, they're the ones who took that idiotic argument all the way to the supreme court. Try to follow along, I didn't claim that the bible forbids interracial marriage, BJ University did.

Darth Cheney wrote:Then you can cite where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that says gays can be married. You get your knowledge from the Jon Stewart Late Show and know nothing of fact...keep voting democrat.

http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2015/06/obergefell-v-hodges-gay-marriage-decision-full-text/

Apparently you have a reading comprehension problem...where in the CONSTITUTION or BILL OF RIGHTS does it say gays can be married?

The Supreme's weren't acting on Constitutional precedence but rather their feelings (activist ruling)...are you beginning to understand? Before you spout off with more mindless drivel, talk with someone much smarter than you and have them read my question.

Where does the constitution say anyone should be allowed to marry?  By your logic no marriage should be legal.

Check out the 10th Amendment fcukstick.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This decision fabricates law outside the legislative process and infringes on the State's regulation powers. Even John "Whiplash" Roberts understood this, although he must have had a senior moment in King v Burwell.

I love how conservatives like to rape and pillage the tenth amendment whenever they don't get their way.  This is very clearly defined by the first amendment:

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion...

Most organized religion defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, but other than that there is no basis for anything.  Since the first amendment "prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion" the buck stops there.

Seriously? You are making the argument that Obergefell v. Hodges was about establishment of religion? Not even the same sex proponents made that argument. Justice Kennedy found his "fundamental right" somewhere in the swamp of the 14th amendment substantive due process clause.  And Kennedy only made a reference to it in his majority opinion as a "promise" that believers and religions would be protected if they didn't condone gay marriage. In fact the dissenting justices warned explicitly that this ruling does not protect religion.

WOW!!!    You got your bags all packed, but no idea where the hell you are going

The Fourteenth Amendment houses something called the "Incorporation Doctrine".  Back when we abolished slavery there were people, like minded to yourself, that didn't think that individual states had to abide by the constitution if they didn't like what it said.  They wrote laws in a particular manner in an attempt to circumvent the constitution.  The North wrote the Fourteenth Amendment,  the "due process" clause in particular, to add some teeth to the original Bill of Rights and would not allow Southern states representation without agreeing to it.  This amendment is still widely used today in lieu of the proper verbiage because of people like yourself who have no respect for the constitution.

         
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine

Oh joy and rapture, says the Scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz trying out his newly discovered brain cell. Hay Zeus, you sound like you graduated from the University of Phoenix Paralegal 18 week Constitutional Law program summa cum plug-nickel.

While there's no doubt that the incorporation doctrine covers the 1st Amendment's right of religious liberty/establishment clause, it also covers the 5th amendment's due process clause which is where Kennedy found part of the justification for his opinion along with the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The religious liberty/establishment clause had nothing to do with this ruling. Nothing. Hell it wasn't even one of the two questions that oral arguments were specifically restricted to by the SCOTUS.

What is sad is this case could have easily been decided on the Full Faith and Credit clause (which was one of the questions) which would have required states to recognize same sex marriage from other states and overturn the remaining section of the Defense of Marriage Act but Kennedy decided to play legislator and craft a new right from the swamp fever of the 14th Amendment and require all states to issue marriage licenses in same sex marriages. That is what Scalia is referring to when he warns that this decision is bad for democracy.

The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing same-sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate. The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:The Cornerstone address is considered by many Civil War historians as a insignificant event prior to hostilities. President Jefferson Davis even disavowed it which might help explain some of the animosity felt between Davis and Vide-President Stephens. That and the fact that Stephens was not even pro-secession. Still even a complete reading of the address finds the part you left out talking about the Tariff of Abomination and the Whig party's obsession with internal improvements:

"The question of building up class interests, or fostering one branch of industry to the prejudice of another, under the exercise of the revenue power, which gave us so much trouble under the old Constitution, is put at rest forever under the new. We allow the imposition of no duty with a view of giving advantage to one class of persons, in any trade or business, over those of another. All, under our system, stand upon the same broad principles of perfect equality. Honest labor and enterprise are left free and unrestricted in whatever pursuit they may be engaged in ...."

There's no doubt that Southern slave owners felt that slavery was important to their economy. But the movement globally towards Capitalism had already doomed the inefficient slave economy in the South and it was only a matter of time before the slave economy would collapse. Ironically it was Lincoln and the Republican (reborn Whigs) party that gave the secessionist movement a boost with the imposition of punishing tariffs. In fact if Lincoln had offered to buy the slaves from the slave owners as he did in his Second Address to Congress in December of 1862 prior to the war the whole bloody mess may have been avoided. But Lincoln desired a strong central government and the Whig policy of the American System and come hell or high water he was bound to have it.

Darth Cheney wrote:In retrospect...I wish our ancestors had picked their own cotton.

Harold Covington wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:In retrospect...I wish our ancestors had picked their own cotton.

I'm guessing there would be one hell of a lot of people that would agree with you.

But no, those self entitled southern democrats were too damn lazy to work and such poor businessmen that they couldn't afford to stay in business without free labor. They were a pathetic lot weren't they?

Harold Covington wrote:


But no, those self entitled southern democrats were too damn lazy to work and such poor businessmen that they couldn't afford to stay in business without free labor. They were a pathetic lot weren't they?  

A dumbass liberal wrote:   I don't know if you heard this or not, but they made it very clear that churches would not be forced to marry anyone. You know, part of that whole "freedom of religion" thing.    

The same dumbass liberal also wrote:    It has everything to do with the fact that the do's and dont's of marriage are strictly a religious argument,     

Jammer wrote:The liberals of the 1800’s...

Jammer wrote:
There is a civil component in this issue.  There are reams of data that show crime goes up, education goes down, drug use goes up, poverty increases and a host of other societal ills increase when the traditional family is removed from raising a child.  This is just one more attempt by the progressive liberals to destroy the traditional family and thus destroy our society and our country.

These people are pure evil.

Dr. Jones wrote:And so it begin...

For some officials, faith overrules same-sex marriage ruling
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/30/us/same-sex-marriage-supreme-court-ruling-holdouts/index.html

Now what.  I certainly think they are well within their rights to refuse on religious grounds.  But does that make them incapable of performing their duty at their job?  Is it even legal for them to do so?

Harold Covington wrote:

Jammer wrote:The liberals of the 1800’s...

You think the southern democrats were liberal?

Well ain't you special.

Harold Covington wrote:

Jammer wrote:The liberals of the 1800’s...

You think the southern democrats were liberal?

Well ain't you special.

Jammer wrote:

A dumbass liberal wrote:   I don't know if you heard this or not, but they made it very clear that churches would not be forced to marry anyone. You know, part of that whole "freedom of religion" thing.    

You can go ahead and file that one away with "if you like your healthcare insurance, you can keep your healthcare insurance.

I think you need to reacquaint yourself with how the constitution works.

The same dumbass liberal also wrote:    It has everything to do with the fact that the do's and dont's of marriage are strictly a religious argument,     

There is a civil component in this issue.  There are reams of data that show crime goes up, education goes down, drug use goes up, poverty increases and a host of other societal ills increase when the traditional family is removed from raising a child.  This is just one more attempt by the progressive liberals to destroy the traditional family and thus destroy our society and our country.

These people are pure evil.

I would love to see these reams of information on how non-traditional families have a poor record on raising children.  There's no doubt that coming from a broken home is hard on a child, but what we are talking about is far from a broken home.  What is a "traditional family"?  One where the husband goes to the bar, gets drunk, and spouts off about how "queers" are ruining marriage. Then goes home to beat his wife, in front if his kid, because supper is cold?

A really dumbass liberal wrote: I would love to see these reams of information on how non-traditional families have a poor record on raising children.